Comments by "Ash Roskell" (@ashroskell) on "" video.
-
1
-
I love physics theories, have read literally thousands of books, but studied political history at college and wasted my career in social services, whilst being a dunce at maths. But, that doesn’t mean I don’t have anything smart to say about the theories, or cannot have an insight of value. Am I allowed to pick a side on the current debate about string theory? I wrote to a physicist once, impressed by his book and wanting to posit an idea. He wrote back and was very kind, patiently explaining why my idea could not work. I thanked him, seeing why he was right, and moved on. But, I don’t think I had been a crackpot about it? I was just trying to come to grips with big, exciting ideas and learn more.
Granted, I was not suggesting physics was wrong. I was trying to overcome the problem of faster than light communication with a quantum idea. If my idea was stupid, then the author in question was very flattering to me about it, as he told me he thought I was being very clever in my approach.
By the way, I would question your characterisation of Schrödinger’s Cat. Yes, it was not meant to prove or disprove quantum theory. And, yes, it is an illustration, not a demonstration of anything. But, Schrödinger was trying to illustrate the fact that we have failed to explain something fundamental about how it works. He was showing that there is a dissonance between the quantum understanding and the point at which it works in the macro world.
That is why we now have the two separate schools of thought; one trying to explain that gap and the other called, “Shut up and calculate.” It is the most successful theory in the world. Yet, Einstein was right too. There is a gap in our understanding and we have not yet resolved the point at which quantum stops being quantum and becomes macro. The first person to do that will win a Nobel Prize. But, I’m not crackpot enough to imagine I would dream it up out of inspiration.
The reason for physics’ crackpot appeal is the fact that a crackpot can actually hide from the layman behind complexity of theory, and believes they can throw enough chaff into the eyes of real physicists to confuse any onlooking audience. It provides a lot of cover for crackpots. Especially since some qualified physicists can be crackpots too. Oh, you acknowledge that at the end, so that helps explain it, right?
Loved the video. Good to see a scientist openly express exasperation with crackpots without worrying about their, “image,” at least.
1